Scientific studies have consistently shown that kids do best with traditional families, aka intact biological families. That is no surprise, as that has been the conventional wisdom for centuries. But for the last ten years, leftist pro-LGBT professors have been saying otherwise, without evidence.
As mentioned below, a new study showed again that kids do better with natural parents. The leftists are not trying to censor the authors.
200 PhDs and MDs have signed a letter to complain about the truth being published without pro-LGBT spin:
We urge you to publicly disclose the reasons for both the expedited peer review process of this clearly controversial paper and the choice of commentators invited to submit critiques. We further request that you invite scholars with specific expertise in LGBT parenting issues to submit a detailed critique of the paper and accompanying commentaries for publication in the next issue of the journal.Most of the signers are just sociologists with an interest in LGBT issues. If they were real scientists who had a legitimate disagreement, they would explain why the paper is wrong or do a better study.
I am sure that they would like to make the point that, under ideal conditions, lesbians and gays can make satisfactory adoptive parents. I am sure that is true. But if we are to adopt laws and policies that promote LGBT parenting, then we should look at data on how well it works in practice, and stop pretending that LGBT parents do as well as natural parents. All of the evidence favors natural parents.
15 comments:
What they hate the most is the happy American nuclear family, as symbolized by the 1950s TV show, Ozzie and Harriet.
”The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ families today,” Leno told the Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.“
More misrepresentations.
There have been a lot of studies referenced in your blog before conrradicting this study which you've failed to name.
These academics and scientists aren't wrong because they've asked a few questions about the study.
Because they didn't do as you say they would have if they were right, doesn't mean that they are wrong. Besides, they Have other studies, demonstrating otherwise.2
I suspect that if a study were done comparing children who were adopted to long-term, loving gay couples as opposed to shuffling kids from foster care to foster care, the kids adopted by the above-mentioned gay couples would do better and be happier. Barbara
Of course, he's not interested in telling you how the paper was done and who did it and how. Mark Regnerus’ flawed paper on gay parenting has won the acclaim of hate groups and ex-gay therapists and its publication seems to have been politically calculated with marriage equality opponents like the National Organization for Marriage. A group of 18 anti-gay religiously-biased professors defended the paper, but now, a group of over 200 professors and therapists have written a “bombshell letter” critiquing its methods and publication.
Among the concerns are how quickly it was published, the validity of its peer review, and the merits of its methodology and conclusions:
If the LGBT professors had any legitimate complaints, they would not be complaining about who quickly it was published. They would publish their own paper.
Barbara, you can do that study if you wish, but it would not contradict this study.
I will re-post info about the study, so readers can decide for themselves.
If the LGBT professors had any legitimate complaints, they would not be complaining about who quickly it was published.
You understand why they are complaining about how quickly it was published.
"To determine whether a parental same-sex relationship affects a child's outcome, it is critical to know the length of these relationships, and whether the same-sex partners were actually living with, and parenting, the child for any length of time. The study does not assess this," Gates said.
The study is a snapshot of a particular moment in history. The youngest people in the survey turned 18 in 2011 and the oldest did so in 1990, growing up in a time when social support for gay lifestyles, particularly those involving children, was less established. In 2000, the U.S. Census counted nearly 170,000 households headed by gay or lesbian parents of children under age 18. In fact, only two of the respondents reported living with their mother or father and a same-sex partner for their entire childhood.
"I'd be interested in seeing this study redone in 20 years with the more intact same-sex families we see now," Saul said.
You also understnad that the've published their own papers already, too.
Other studies have found that children raised by same-sex parents are not different from children of heterosexual couples. The American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America and other organizations have issued public support for same-sex parenting.
You know who funded the study and why. It was politically motivated, exactly the same motivation that you complain the left is involved in.
It was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, groups that are "commonly known for their support of conservative causes,"
It was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, groups that are "commonly known for their support of conservative causes,"
Founded in 2003 by Robert P. George and others,[3][4][2] the institute is named after John Witherspoon.[1] It shares many scholars with the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.[2] Fellows include Jean Bethke Elshtain, Harold James, John Joseph Haldane, W. Bradford Wilcox, and James R. Stoner, Jr.[5]
It promotes traditional marriage[citation needed] and deals with stem cell research, constitutional law, and globalization.[2] In 2003, it organized a conference on religion in modern societies.[6] In 2006, Republican Senator Sam Brownback cited Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles in a debate over a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.
If the leftist-LGBT fanatics think that this study should be redone in 20 years, then they can do ahead and do that. But that is no excuse to censor this study for 20 years.
Supporting mainstream marriage is a mainstream view. Apparently the leftist who control academic social sciences did not want any study done.
Yes, the APA supports same-sex marriage, but only for leftist anti-family ideological reasons. I will post more on that subject.
First, only you term these academics and M.d.'s "leftist LGBT fanatics". Regardless, they never said that a study should be postponed for 20 years, there's already been studies done. More comprehensive studies.
They never said that this conservative group's study should be censored, did they ?
Whoever controls the academic studies, has had studies done already. Did you read what was written above ?
Yes, 200 leftist LGBT fanatics signed a petition complaining about the study being published, and seeking to punish the author. I call that an attempt at censorship. And no, the critics have not done more comprehensive studies. The position is political, and not based on evidence.
So asking for a peer revew is the same as punishing the author ?
Would you call this study comprehensive given the following...
In 2000, the U.S. Census counted nearly 170,000 households headed by gay or lesbian parents of children under age 18. In fact, only two of the respondents reported living with their mother or father and a same-sex partner for their entire childhood.
The position is political, and not based on evidence.
You don't think the funders of this study seem political ?
It promotes traditional marriage[citation needed] and deals with stem cell research, constitutional law, and globalization.[2] In 2003, it organized a conference on religion in modern societies.[6] In 2006, Republican Senator Sam Brownback cited Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles in a debate over a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.
Yes, the funders are pro-marriage, and not dedicated to the destruction of the American family, as many leftist academics are. If you want to call the funders political, go ahead. But at least they are not trying to censor other views, as the LGBT activists are.
Do you think that the funnders are political ?
Maybe the defintion of the American family will be redefined ?
Are all academics leftists ? Aren't you an academist ?
Are you a leftist dedicated to dedicated to the destruction of American families.
So asking for a peer review is the same as punishing the author ? , or censoring ?
Would you call this study comprehensive given the following...
In 2000, the U.S. Census counted nearly 170,000 households headed by gay or lesbian parents of children under age 18. In fact, only two of the respondents reported living with their mother or father and a same-sex partner for their entire childhood.
The paper was peer-reviewed, and published in a pro-LGBT academic journal. Most academics in the soft sciences are leftist.
Some people would have preferred that the study had looked at some other question. Those people can do their own study.
So asking for a peer review is the same as punishing the author ? , or censoring ?
Would you call this study comprehensive given the following...
In 2000, the U.S. Census counted nearly 170,000 households headed by gay or lesbian parents of children under age 18. In fact, only two of the respondents reported living with their mother or father and a same-sex partner for their entire childhood.
Post a Comment